The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-03-23

|
but could not find him and went for the de-
fendant, DIR. Worthen, who came and made
| an examination of the foot. Finding the
injury of serious nature, he sent Dickn-
son for a bottle of ether. This was pro-
cured and some of it administered to Vim
cent. Then DIR. Worthen, assisted by
| Dickinson, went to work on the injured
ankle, pulling and hauling at it to get the
| bones back into place. 1t was claimed by
| the plaintiff that the ether was not admins
tered to sufficient extent, and that he did
not become unconscious at all; that while
the doctor was pulling on the foot he
(plaintfD was perfectly conscious and felt
the pain inflicted in the operation to such
| an extent as to scream every time they
pulled on the foot After about three
quarters of an hour the doctor said the
ankle was reset and was all right; he then
put on splints and bandages and left The
plaintiff was confined to the house about
four weeks and then went out on crutches,
and later on with crutch and cane. In
February after the accident he secured
work at his trade, but was unable to do any
but low work, like counters, etc, and he
could not do full days work nor earn
full days pay. As the time ran along he
found his ankle did not get any better and
was so lame that he could not walk on that
foot nor hardly touch it to the ground He
consulted other physicians about it, some of
whom thought 1t was as well as 1t could be
and others that it had not been properly
set One surgeon DR.. Phelps of Burlington
Medical College, thought he ought to have
part of the bone removed in order to effect
an improvement. The plaintiff testified
that he had used the greatest care of the in
jured ankle and had not in any way hurt it
since the doctor fixed it and said it was all
right. As no improvement in the condition
of the foot appeared, the plaintiff brought
this suit for the alleged malpractice. The
plaintiff introduced several medical ex-
peT'ts who had examined the injured ankle
and gave it as their opinion that the bone
was still dislocated, and, Judging from the
history of the case and present condition of
the ankle, they did not think there would
be any or much Improvement in it. They
further testified that while such injuries
were of the most serious nature known to
surgeons, yet they saw nothing in the pres
ent case why, with proper treatment. the
dslocation might not have been reduced if
attended to in time On being questioned
as to the administration of ether, they said
that patient in such case ought to be un-
conscious in order for the surgeon to have
the best possible effect in performing the
, operation. In the main, the plaintiff S
medical experts agreed that the course of
, treatment adopted by DIR. Worthen was
about the same as they would have adopted,
except that DR.. Wiswell testified he should
use what is called starch bandage," or
some other fixed appliance, to keep the re-
2 placed bones in their place. The doctors on
the plaintiffs side further gave it as their
: opinion that when such dislocation is once
properly replaced only with great force could
it be again thrown out of place. The defence
was that the present condition of the ankle
was due to the too early and ndiscreet use
of it by the plaintiffs that all that surgical
, skill could do was done in the first instance.
Several medical experts were introduced as
witnesses for the defendant, among them
: DR.. l.. M. Bingham of the Mary Fletcher
! hospital, Burlington, DIR. Chandler of Mont
: pelier, Dr. Bradford of Northfeld, and
. others. They testified to the difficulty OF
: obtaining satisfactory results in such inju
-. ries as that of the plaintiff; said the ratio
= of cures was about one in three; that
i the loss of the limb was oftentimes a
result, and that death was a not uncommon
= sequel to such an injury. AS to just what
. was the trouble now with the plaintiffs
, foot was matter of difference of opinion
!, among the defendants experts, but they
- agreed, in the main, that the injury was
' properly treated, and that the present con.
: dition, in their opinion, resulted from the
. improper using of the ankle before cure
u was effected. Some thought he had dislo
e Gated it again. DR.. Bradford thought he
- had tattened out the arch of the foot before
. the injured parts had become strong enough
= to use. The defendant also relied upon the
v testimony of several witnesses who were
g introduced to impeach the plaintiff by show
e e ing he had out of court told them that he
= believed he had used his foot too soon after
u the injury. The defendant himself testified
!, fully about his treatment of the case HI
=, swore that the plaintiff was thoroughly
= under the influence of the ether admins
: tered to him. He replaced the bone tha
was out of joint, and heard it 90 back int
If place after pulling on it for some time. HI
~ was positive the ankle was properly set anC
- in way to get well when the plaintiff dis
d charged him and told him not TO come ant
ir see him any more. This was about thre
lie weeks after the accident. In rebuttal, tn
lie plaintiff denied making any such state
At ments as the testimony of the defendan
4 4. L =.
n structed the jury that the defendant mus
e be held up to the measure of skill possesse,
h by the average surgeon in his locality.
,r he carefully exercised that degree of skill
1T the plaintiff could not recover. The jur
W took the case Thursday evening, and on FIR
r day morning returned sealed verdict
% which was found to be for the defendant
le Bisbee, Shurtleff and Lamson for the plain
n tiff; Boyces, Heath & Willard and w. T
b. Dillingham; for defendant.
as MELVIN II. TEACHoUT rs e. II. DUKE
.. Auditd queretd to set aside justice 1uds
IN ment alleged to have been procured by tn
i, fraud of the defendant. The facts in tn
* case were that Duke had pending justic
We lawsuit against Teachout, in which a.
he Thomas, a West Randolph lawyer, wa
ot counsel for Duke and j. p. Lamson fo
n Teachout. 1t was agreed that the cas-
I'd should come before Justice Putnam
e. Woodbury. Center on the 2Sth of May. Nj
rs Thomas found he could not attend on tina
IL udy anu ne WTOlt 10 MT. IdulSOH dSklu
tn if he would agree to continue the case unit
'ir July. To this Mr.. Lamson replied that
)d might stand so continued. This fact NJ
rs Thomas communicated to his client, Duk
re Nevertheless Duke went on to trial an
ne got the justice to render Judgment b
n, default 1t was claimed by Duke that 4
Sc had heard nothing from Mr. Thomas or M
1t Lamson, and that he supposed Teachout il
id tended to let him have Judgment tt
court has this case under advisement an
awaits the appearance of another witneS
for the plaintiff.
MARY A. LELAND rs. WILLIAM LELAND
This was petition for divorce. The pet
toner was married in 1861 and in 1883 h'
s. husband left her and went to Omaha, whei
he now resides. Bill granted
'et Monday afternoon it was expected
hg commence on the state cases, but none ber
as in readiness the jurors were again excuse
he until Tuesday morning The following sta
ne cases were disposed of: State rs. ID. c. Sloa
IS; liquor; guilty of two first offences. State .
OF NJ. S. Davis; of two first offences. Fin
es: were imposed. Bonds were called al
OF forfeited in cases of State as. Premier, Sta
as. Bacon, State u.s. McCrillis, State Z
,R- Omer Miller, State u.s. #. II. Stevens, Sta
he as. Harper Pitkin and State rs. Clark
u Roberts. In State as. A. w. Spauldin
IN plea of guilty, a fine of $50 was impose
le- and imprisonment in the workhouse for
ce month. State as. Collins Blakely, bon'
he forfeited: also same result i'm case of Sta